REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
INFANTA DISTRICT OFFICE
Infanta, Quezon

MARIE ANTOINETTE B. CELIS,

Complainant,

versus NPS Docket No. IV-09c-INV

19I-00165 (Real, Quezon)
For: Viol. Of Art. 172 in relation to
Art. 171 of RPC; and
Art. 183 of the RPC

MARGIE C. QUIBRAL,
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------x

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT

I, MARIE ANTOINETTE B. CELIS, of legal age and residing at Mayfield Park Residences, Da Roma
Bldg., Unit 419, Rosario, Pasig City, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:

1. The respondent’s Counter-Affidavit is misleading as it cites distorted facts. While it is true that
Silvestre Coralde was the original owner of Title No. H-110554 with a total land area of 116,632
sqm, the respondent in her Counter-Affidavit deliberately withheld information that prior to
Silvestre Coralde’s death in 1935, he had already disposed a large portion of the land in dispute,
wherein 35,467 sqm of which was divided by and among his three daughters in the following
manner- Fabia Coralde (6,000 sqm), Cecilia Coralde (14,733 sqm) and Candida Coralde (14,734
sqm) with 50,466 square meters donated to Jacinto Revellame on January 6, 1935 and the
remaining land to other individuals.

2. While referring to the July 31, 1944 Extra Judicial Agreement between and among Fabia
Coralde, Cecilia Coralde and Candida Coralde , the respondent cited that “the other heirs only
found out about the alleged Agreement on September 22, 1977.” However, the same is utterly
false since the Agreement between and among the sisters was not a new discovery in 1977 since
as early as 1944 both Cornelio Coralde, the respondent’s great grandfather and Juan Coralde,
acknowledged this settlement Agreement by affixing their signatures on the notarized Extra
Judicial Agreement between and among the sisters. Being witnesses thereof, they were thus
estopped from assailing the said Agreement.

3. The respondent’s great grandfather, plaintiff Cornelio Coralde and the other Plaintiffs herein
did not file a claim over the subject property (which respondent is claiming as theirs) since
January 6, 1935 and only did so on September 2, 1977, which is way beyond the prescriptive
period for filing a complaint (which is four (4) years or in case of fraud, ten (10) years). Their legal
right to claim and include the subject property in the case for Partition and Accounting has
already lapsed due to the extra-long period of time that elapsed from the moment they came to
know about the Extra-Judicial Agreement (which they knew when they signed as witnesses to the
said document in 1944) up to the time they filed their original complaint in 1977 or 33 long years.
Thus, their claim for annulment of the Extra Judicial Agreement and the title that arose from said
agreement (i.e., TCT-6080) was denied by the Honorable Court for this reason.

4. It is a blatant lie and a mere figment of the respondent’s imagination when she alleged that
Cecilia Coralde and Candida Coralde reduced the land area to 35,467 sqm themselves to
deliberately exclude other heirs. The truth of the matter is that the land area was erroneously
recorded by the Bureau of Lands itself as 35,467 square meters and entered as such on January
20, 1933. However, in a certified technical description signed by Isabelo del Carmen on November
29, 1960, the land area had already been corrected to 116,632 sqm. It was not Cecilia Coralde’s
nor Candida Coralde’s fault that the entire land was erroneously recorded as 35,467 sqm. Nor
was it their intention to exclude or defraud other heirs. Having lived, and tilled their share of the
land which they were in possession prior to their father’s death, Title TCT No. T-7101 was issued
in their favor for only their portion of 35,467 sqm out of the entire 116,632 sqm.

5. While it is true that the respondent has the same last name as the original owner Silvestre
Coralde, her provenance is irrelevant to the question of who are now the true legal owners of
TCT No. T-6080. The respondent in her Counter-Affidavit clearly omitted one crucial fact-- that
TCT-6080 has already been affirmed with finality on February 16, 1996 when Judge Venancio
Tarriela rendered a decision that title TCT No. T-6080 in the names of Lolita B. Celis, Candida
Coralde and Cecilia Coralde is AFFIRMED AS VALID. The decision did not in anyway indicate that
the Plaintiffs were to be included as owners in the title of the subject titled property. The court
clearly denied the Plaintiffs’ prayer in their complaint to declare null and void said Title No. T-
6080. On December 12, 1996, Judge Edgardo Manalo issued a Certificate of Finality which was
annotated as Entry 47483 at the back of the title to the effect that said decision is final and
executory in favor of Lolita B. Celis. On July 25, 1997 the same Judge issued another Certificate
of Finality which was entered as Entry 48329 in favor of Cecilia Coralde et al to the effect that
said decision is final and executory.

6. Aggrieved by the Regional Trial Court’s Decision, the Plaintiffs appealed with the Court of
Appeals. However, on November 3, 2005, the Court of Appeals, Special 7th Division promulgated
its resolution affirming as VALID the Regional Trial Court’s decision declaring that title TCT No.
T-6080 under the names of Lolita B. Celis, widow, 6,000 square meters share, Cecilia Coralde,
married to Lucio Penaverde, 14,733 square meters share, and Candida Coralde, widow, 14,734
square meters share, which was later on decided with finality pursuant to the Court of Appeals’
issuance of an entry of judgment on December 4, 2005. While title TCT No. T-6080 was affirmed
VALID, in its Decision, the Court of Appeals did not declare the said Extra-Judicial Agreement null
and void. Instead, the Court of Appeals clearly specified that the partition contained in the Extra-
Judicial Agreement “is modified” and remanded to the Regional Trial Court to include other heirs
of the deceased Silvestre Coralde. Since the parties were in a quandary as to the meaning,
interpretation and implication of the Court of Appeals’ decision, both parties agreed to file a
Motion for Clarificatory Judgment on October 2, 2009 but this was denied with finality on
December 14, 2010. With the denial, the Court of Appeals stated that, “at the outset the
aforementioned decision was already final and executory when the motion was filed. Nothing is
more settled in the law than the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, whether it was made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The only recognized exceptions to the general
rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality
of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. None of the exceptions is present
in this case.”

7. The respondent’s great grandfather, Cornelio Coralde and other co-heirs did not originally
claim the properties owned by the Revillames, Alfonsos and other rightful owners because they
were aware that these families have been tilling and occupying, in a continuous and
uninterrupted manner, more than 51,166 square meters portion of the total land area as early
as 1935. Nor did respondents’ predecessor-in-interest claim the 35,467 sqm specified in the July
31, 1944 Extra Judicial Agreement between sisters Fabia Coralde, Cecilia Coralde and Candida
Coralde. Thus, in the partition and accounting case currently pending before the RTC-Infanta
which is being cited by the respondent, the total remaining area for partition should no longer
be reckoned from the total original area of 116,362 square meters but as reduced by the areas
already sold/disposed of to innocent third parties for value. Since a big portion of the original
116,636 square meters has already been titled, sold, and donated to several individuals who have
continuously occupied without interruption the land in question since 1935, the Partition and
Accounting in the current case cannot affect the portions already owned and possessed by the
Defendants, (including complainant herein) and other owners with titles such as Spouses Manuel
and Cristina Alfonso, Cayetano Revellame, Belinda Lara, Anita Lumagpas,, Beverly Verzo and
spouses Noel and Helen Velasco. The area covered by TCT No. T-6080 which has been
erroneously recorded as 35,467 sq. meters and the 51,166 sq. meters owned by the Revillames
had already been effectively segregated from the total actual area (mother lot) of 116,362 sqm
even before the original title TCT No. T-7101 and subsequently, TCT No. T-6080 were issued. It
must be noted that the Revillames were in uninterrupted possession from 1935 until a portion
thereof (30,440 sq. meters) was sold to Lolita B. Celis on June 30,1997. On the other hand,
Candida and Cecilia Coralde took possession of the lot in dispute in 1944, a long period of 33
years without any complaint or claim made by the plaintiffs herein. In fact, it is too long a period
to be ignored. The long, continuous, open and undisturbed possession by original defendants had
the effect of partial partition of the co-owned property entitling the possessors (original
defendants and their assigns/transferees/substitutes) to the specific and definitive portions
which they occupied as already ruled in the case of Spouses Manuel and Salvacion del Campo vs.
Hon. Court of Appeals, et. al. , wherein the Supreme Court held:

“Be that as it may, we find that the area subject matter of this petition had already been
effectively segregated from the ‘mother lot’ even before title was issued in favor of Regalado. It
must be noted that 26 years had lapsed from the time petitioners bought and took possession of
the property in 1951 until Regalado procured the issuance of TCT No. 14566. Additionally, the
intervening years between the date of petitioners’ purchase of the property and 1987 when
petitioners filed the instant complaint, comprise all of 36 years. However, at no instance during
this time did respondents or Regalado for that matter, question petitioners’ right over the land
in dispute. In the case of Vda. De Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals , we had occasion to hold that
where the transferees of an undivided portion of the land allowed a co-owner of the property
to occupy a definite portion thereof and had not disturbed the same for a period too long to
be ignored, the possessor is in a better condition or right than the said transferees. (Potior est
condition possidentis). Such undisturbed possession had the effect of a partial partition of the
co-owned property which entitles the possessor to the definite portion which he occupies.
Conformably, petitioners are entitled to the disputed land, having uninterrupted possession
thereof for a total of 49 years up to the present.” (emphasis ours).

Having valid titles with legally-recognized owners who have paid real property taxes, respondent
and her co-heirs can no longer disturb the said owners. Neither can these alienated, transferred,
and subsequently titled lands be included in the remaining land to be divided among the heirs of
deceased Silvestre Coralde since these have already been segregated and delineated upon the
issuance of their respective titles.

8. Respondent cited that she lived and grew up in the land in dispute which is another lie. None
of the original plaintiffs nor the respondent and co-heirs have actually lived and tilled the land
for 85 years or since 1935 as they claimed in their Amended Complaint submitted to RTC because
the subject land had already been acquired by the registered owners mentioned above long
before they entered the picture. However, plaintiff Cornelio Coralde, the respondent’s great
grandfather illegally constructed permanent structures beginning on December 29, 1978.
Respondent and her co-heirs despite protests by the complainant and her siblings continued to
build within the part of the total area covered by TCT No. T-6080 which I own and my siblings and
the portion owned by Spouses Mario and Josephine Macaraeg, both portions of which are part
of the total area covered by TCT No. T-6080 which her great grandfather Cornelio along with
other plaintiffs originally prayed to be annulled and voided but which, fortunately for us, has
already been denied by RTC and AFFIRMED WITH FINALITY by the Court of Appeals in 2005
containing an express and categorical statement to the effect that TCT No. T-6080 in the name
of Lolita Celis, Cecilia Coralde and Candida Coralde was validly owned by Lolita Celis, Candida and
Cecilia Coralde (but subsequently legally transferred to Marie Antoinette Celis etal and spouses
Josephine and Mario Macaraeg) with areas consisting of 14,733 and 14,734 square meters,
respectively. Plaintiffs have illegally occupied the subject property since then.
9. During the pendency of the case, the share of Cecilia Coralde 14,733 square meters , was sold
on March 11, 1996, to ANTONETTE B. CELIS, SOLOMON B. CELIS II, SOLOMON B. CELIS III,
ROBERTO B. BORROMEO and TIMOTHY B. BORROMEO, all children of LOLITA B. CELIS. This sale
was evidenced by the corresponding Deed of Sale and inscribed/annotated in TCT No. T-6080 as
Entry No. 47972.

10. Also segregated/alienated is the 14,734 square meters share of CANDIDA CORALDE, who on
December 29, 1978 during the pendency of the case, sold her share to SPOUSES MARIO
MACARAEG and JOSEPHINE CELIS. This sale was evidenced by the corresponding Deed of Sale
which was annotated in TCT No. T-6080 as Entry No. 48305.

11. In fact, this Honorable RTC has already taken cognizance of the aforesaid transfers and
conveyances when it ordered on January 5, 2012 to grant the oral motion for leave of court by
Josephine Celis, Antonette B. Celis, Solomon B. Celis III, Roberto B. Borromeo and Timothy B.
Borromeo to intervene as party-defendants being the transferees thereof from the original
defendants as evidenced by the deeds of sale in their favor made by the original defendants
Candida Coralde and Cecilia Coralde without the objection on the part of the plaintiffs’ counsel.

12. As a matter of procedure, the legal and factual basis of the technical description which
describes the metes and bounds of the property covered by TCT No. T-6080 is the location/survey
plan prepared by a duly-licensed geodetic engineer and approved by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). In short, before a title can be issued by the Registry
of Deeds, a location/survey plan has to be prepared and approved by the DENR or Land
Registration Authority (LRA). The existence of the location or survey plan is the best evidence
that the property covered by a title has already been specifically located or segregated from the
other lots in the same area/vicinity. It is a blatant lie for the respondent to cite that TCT-6080 has
not been segregated yet and no partition exists. Complainant is fully cognizant of the fact that
the subject property contains an actual area of 116,362 sq.m. and not only 35,467 sq.m. because
the original survey containing the correct area already existed as early as 1933 and certified by
Bureau of Lands in 1960 as indeed to be the metes and bounds of the entire 116,632 sqm and
the segregation of 35,467 sqm from it. The latest approved DENR survey dated February 18,
1999, clearly separates the 35,467 sqm now owned by Lolita Celis and her children.

13. The denial of the TRO cited by the respondent is only half of the truth. With the TRO denial
due to non-technical qualifications of both parties, Engineer Costumbrado, a licensed geodetic
engineer, was issued a Commission Order by the Court to locate the 35,467 sqm. He confirmed
the existence of structures built by the respondent and her co-heirs to be within the metes and
bounds of TCT T-6080 and thus, the constructions encroached on the 35,467 square meters
portion which I and my siblings own. In addition to the permanent structures, respondent went
as far as constructing a fence (without the required fencing permit) over the entire property.
Thus, respondent and her relatives have illegally occupied the subject property and declared the
same as theirs when the same is still subject to pending litigation.
14. It must be stressed that a previous survey prepared by Engr. De Los Reyes in favor of the
Plaintiffs was proven to be falsified resulting in the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) declaring it null and void.

15. Despite all the foregoing, it must be stressed that the main issue in this complaint is whether
or not respondent may be held liable for violation of Art. 171 par. 4 in relation to Art. 172 of the
Revised Penal Code which was committed by making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts. To reiterate, the elements of the aforesaid offense are:

(a) The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and
(c) The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.

17. Based on the circumstances obtaining in this case, it is crystal clear that respondent has made
untruthful statements in the narration of facts that she made in her application for building
permit for the construction of her 2-storey residential dwelling when she narrated that she
secured the consent of the lot owner who she indicated was her father, DIONY G. CORALDE, when
in truth and in fact the latter is not yet the owner of the said lot. In fact, in his Judicial Affidavit
presented before Civil Case 1-I on March 20, 2012 pending with the RTC Branch 65 of Infanta,
Quezon, Diony Coralde, the respondent’s father said in his testimony:

Question: “As far as you know, did you receive your share in the said property of your great
grandfather?

Answer: “Not yet sir, because the case is still under litigation.”

Question: Now, what do you want the court to do with this present case Mr. Witness?

Answer: I am praying that the Order of proper partition be effected by the Court, Sir.

A photocopy of the said JA is attached herewith as Annex “A”. This sworn and signed Affidavit
clearly shows that Diony Coralde himself, the respondent’s father admitted that he had not yet
received his and his siblings’ share in the lot which is the subject matter of the case since the case
for partition and accounting is still under litigation. The respondent did not and cannot provide
any proof of ownership except a false claim on her application that her father was the owner of
the land. The Honorable RTC Judge has yet to determine who are the other heirs of Silvestre
Coralde. Verily, DIONY G. CORALDE cannot be considered yet as the owner of the lot which
respondent is claiming.
The respondent and her co-heirs have yet to wait for the Final Execution by the Court as to
whether she and her co-heirs are entitled to the land they are claiming and if so, what portion of
the remaining land if any is entitled to them. As such, how can she claim to be a co-owner of TCT-
6080? The title has no record or annotation of her ownership. She and her co-heirs want to be
owners but unfortunately, they are not until the Court says so. However, the complainant already
has legal proof of ownership as evidenced by the Deed of Sale, Tax Declaration and Tax
Certificates on the property in dispute.

18. Likewise, the question of whether or not respondent can be the held liable for the other
offense being attributed to her which is violation of Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code can also
be answered positively since she knowingly made untruthful statements and testified under oath
upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer oath in a case
where the law requires it. Respondent obviously committed the aforesaid acts when she applied
for a building permit and made an untruthful or false statement that her father was the owner
of the lot she is claiming even when the same had not yet been adjudicated to her or her father.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of November at
___________________.

MARIE ANTOINETTE B. CELIS

AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, with affiant exhibiting her ID No.
_____________________ and acknowledged that she voluntarily executed and understood the
foregoing affidavit.

Doc. No. ______

Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 20____